What changed

Follow up to the European Parliament non-legislative resolution on Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093 of 22 May 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a list of countries that present a low or high risk of producing relevant commodities for which the relevant products do not comply with Article 3, point (a)

B100321/2025

Resolution tabled pursuant to Rule 115 (2) and (3) of the European Parliament's Rules of procedure

European Parliament resolution on Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093 of 22 May 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a list of countries that present a low or high risk of producing relevant commodities for which the relevant products do not comply with Article 3, point (a)

References: 2025/2739(RSP) / B10-0321/2025 / P10_TA(2025)0149

(2025/2739(RSP))

Date of adoption of the resolution: 9 July 2025

– having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093 of 22 May 2025 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards a list of countries that present a low or high risk of producing relevant commodities for which the relevant products do not comply with Article 3, point (a),

Competent Parliamentary Committee: Committee on Environment, Climate and Food Safety (ENVI)

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010, and in particular Article 29(2) thereof,

Brief analysis/ assessment of the resolution and requests made in it:

– having regard to Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers,

The resolution expresses concerns about the way in which the Commission exercised its implementing powers when adopting Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093 of 22 May 2025 which establishes a list for the purpose of the country benchmarking foreseen in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 (“EUDR”). The resolution covers four main concerns.

– having regard to Rule 115(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

The concerns are, first, that the Commission exceeded its implementing powers when adopting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093; second, that the methodology was based on incomplete, imprecise, outdated and inflexible data and was developed in a non-transparent manner; third, a lack of consultation and engagement; and fourth, that the Commission should consider amendments to the basic act in a number of suggested ways (additional “negligible risk” category, regulated compensation mechanism).

– having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety,

The resolution therefore goes beyond scrutiny of whether the Commission has exceeded its implementing powers and covers instead points related to substance, to consultations prior to the adoption and to reopening of the legislation. It calls on the Commission to repeal the Implementing Regulation and to revise the country benchmarking system on the basis of various complementary measures, which would entail amending the Regulation.

– having regard to the plenary vote of the European Parliament of 14 November 2024 on the Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as regards provisions relating to the date of application,

Background

Concerns about data quality and methodological robustness

The Implementing Regulation – which pursuant to Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 had to be adopted “no later than 30 June 2025” – was adopted by the Commission on 22 May 2025 and entered into force on 26 May 2025. The Commission has the legal obligation under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 182/2011 (‘the Comitology Regulation’) to proceed with the adoption of the Implementing Regulation after it has received a positive opinion of all Member States in the EUDR Committee, referred to in Article 36(1) of the EUDR. The European Parliament objection was tabled after the adoption and entry into force of the Implementing Regulation.

A. whereas the proposed risk categorisation of countries under Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 does not accurately reflect the current realities in the countries concerned, as it is based on outdated data and fails to incorporate all relevant and available risk indicators;

Response to the requests in the resolution and overview of the action taken, or intended to be taken, by the Commission:

B. whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093 does not accurately reflect realities in the countries concerned as it fails to consider key real-world factors, most notably current land-use dynamics and forest degradation; whereas recognising degradation as a risk factor would result in certain Member States being placed in higher risk categories, thereby challenging the assumption that supply chains within the Union are automatically low-risk;

The Commission takes good note of the arguments and requests included in the resolution. It considers that the Implementing Regulation falls fully within the implementing powers provided for in the EUDR. The Commission envisages to amend the Implementing Regulation in 2026 to ensure that the country classification is updated and takes into account the latest available scientific evidence.

C. whereas key developments in governance, deforestation trends, and enforcement mechanisms that have occurred since 31 December 2020, which is the cut-off date referred to in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, are not adequately reflected in the methodology;

Exercise of implementing powers and call for repeal

D. whereas the data relied on for the risk categorisation are primarily derived from the Global Forest Resources Assessment carried out by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, with the latest full-cycle country submissions predating 2020, and therefore such data do not adequately or fairly represent the recent national efforts to prevent deforestation, updated land-use policies, real-time satellite monitoring improvements and the latest deforestation trends in several countries;

Paragraphs 1-2 and Recitals

E. whereas the methodology for the risk categorisation of countries lacks transparency in relation to how various risk factors are weighted and does not account for regional variability within countries; whereas this raises serious concerns about the fairness and credibility of the classification methodology;

The Implementing Regulation has been carefully prepared in accordance with the implementing powers granted under the EUDR. Article 29(2) of the EUDR explicitly mandates the Commission to classify countries or parts thereof that present a low or high risk. The resolution does not specify where the Commission could have exceeded its implementing powers. The Commission therefore aims to uphold the Implementing Regulation until a review of the country classification takes place, which is envisaged for 2026.

F. whereas the methodology for the risk categorisation of countries is flawed because it focuses primarily on aggregate historical deforestation rates and this approach disregards the multidimensional nature of deforestation risk, failing to consider the full scope of indicators set out in Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115;

Data and Methodology used for the Classification of Countries

G. whereas the approach underlying the current methodology established in Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 does not provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate timely updates, thereby creating significant market uncertainty and potential volatility;

Paragraphs 3-4 and Recitals

H. whereas, without a clearly defined mechanism for regular and transparent reassessment, the classification of countries in risk categories becoming misaligned with evolving conditions, thereby undermining both the effectiveness of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 and the functioning of global commodity markets;

Pursuant to Article 29(3) EUDR, the Commission must base the classification of countries primarily on a number of quantitative assessment criteria (the qualitative criteria in Article 29(4) are a ‘may’, not a ‘shall’ clause), namely (a) the rate of deforestation and forest degradation; (b) the rate of expansion of agriculture land for relevant commodities; and (c) production trends of relevant commodities and of relevant products. Article 29(3) as well as Recital 68 of EUDR further elaborate on the data to be used by the Commission, requiring the data to be “quantitative, objective and internationally recognised” and on the methodology, which should take into account “the latest scientific evidence and internationally recognised sources”.

I. whereas the absence of clear pathways for countries to have their risk categorisation changed through demonstrable progress undermines the role of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as a positive incentive mechanism and limits its potential to drive sustainable transformation on the ground;

The methodology is described in a Staff Working Document accompanying the Implementing Regulation to ensure transparency.

Analysis of challenges in the first risk category of countries (the ‘category low risk’)

Nevertheless, the resolution considers that the methodology underlying the classification of countries is based on incomplete, imprecise, outdated and inflexible data and that it was developed in a non-transparent manner. Detailed explanations on the Commission methodology can be found below.

J. whereas the criterion of net forest loss between 2015 and 2020, used to determine the category low risk referred to in Article 29(1), point (b), of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, considers total forest area loss rather than deforestation as narrowly defined under that Regulation, thereby including areas of temporary forest cover change or forest management not associated with land-use conversion, which undermines methodological consistency and legal certainty;

On incomplete, imprecise and outdated data related to deforestation rate criteria:

K. whereas the methodology for the for the risk categorisation of countries introduces a relative threshold of 0,2 % annual forest area loss, and an absolute threshold of 70 000 hectares of annual forest loss, without providing a clear rationale for those specific values; whereas it is noteworthy that certain high-deforestation countries, such as the United States, fall just below the absolute threshold, raising questions about the objectivity and robustness of the chosen benchmarks;

In order to define the deforestation rate set out in Article 29(3)(a) of EUDR, the source of data used is the Global Forest Resource Assessments (FRA) developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), as the only internationally recognised global inventory of forests. It is based on reporting made by FAO Member States. The most recent available dataset is from 2020 (FAO FRA 2020). The next dataset of the FAO FRA is expected to be published in October 2025. Hence, to ensure the latest available scientific data is taken into account, a first review of the country classification is envisaged in 2026, after the publication of the upcoming FAO FRA dataset.

L. whereas the assessment of deforestation risk based on the expansion of cropland areas used for relevant commodities, as defined in Article 2, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, and the scale of livestock and wood production lacks precision; whereas the inclusion of overall wood production as a proxy for deforestation risks is methodologically questionable, as it conflates lawful forestry activities with deforestation driven by land-use change;

On ‘rate of forest degradation’ not assessed:

Lack of granularity and context sensitivity

FAO FRA data on forest types to map forest degradation is currently not sufficiently developed to ensure an adequate and non-discriminatory representation of countries and time periods. Country reporting for ‘primary forest’ and for other forest types (allowing to assess forest degradation under the definition in EUDR) is not fully comprehensive. As a consequence, there is currently not yet internationally recognized data on the basis of which this criterion can be assessed, making it impossible for the Commission to use its full implementing powers for the current Implementing Regulation. However, the criterion is planned to be integrated in the next review of the classification, taking into account that the next FAO FRA dataset is expected to be more comprehensive regarding country reporting data on primary forest, a key indicator regarding the EUDR definition of forest degradation.

M. whereas the current system of having only three risk categories is insufficient to adequately differentiate between countries with vastly different levels of deforestation risk;

On expansion of agricultural lands and production trends not assessed in a precise and comprehensive manner:

N. whereas the lack of a nuanced approach could undermine the incentive for more ambitious governments to take further action, as it effectively penalises progress and fails to recognise meaningful efforts to combat deforestation;

These two other criteria listed in Article 29(3)(b) and (c) were assessed on the basis of the FAO Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT). Land use statistics for crop commodities are the best indicator for agricultural land expansion of the relevant commodities, capturing land-use dynamics. It allows to identify countries with a certain level of deforestation that is caused by other factors than those covered by EUDR, such as urbanization. For cattle and wood, production data is used since there are no direct statistics on land use for these commodities.

O. whereas the Commission should address the methodological shortcomings of the current tripartite classification system by considering the introduction of a fourth risk category — ‘negligible risk’ — to reflect the reality that in certain countries or regions, the risk of deforestation or forest degradation is effectively negligible due to robust legal frameworks, low land-use change dynamics and sustainable land management practices;

On thresholds of annual forest area loss not sufficiently clear and justified:

P. whereas the current system risks oversimplifying deforestation risk by granting the status to countries based on outdated data or national averages, which could create a false sense of security and potentially reduce the due diligence obligation for products originating from areas where illegal deforestation persists;

As regards the alleged lack of clarity on how the thresholds were established, the relative deforestation threshold is set at 0,2% annual forest area loss, calculated as the rounded average of the FAO FRA statistics. The absolute threshold is set at 70 000 hectares of annual forest loss. Under these thresholds, a large number of countries in the world are classified as low risk, allowing to focus enforcement resources and cooperation efforts in geographic areas where deforestation challenges are more acute.

Q. whereas, although the current data have shown a localised increase in deforestation in certain regions of the globe, such developments underscore the need for a granular, region-specific monitoring rather than static national risk classifications, which pose a risk of mischaracterising the overall trend and of ignoring regional progress or setbacks;

On qualitative criteria not sufficiently accounted for:

R. whereas credible research and long-term studies, such as ‘Deforestation in the Amazon: Past, Present and Future’ published by the Amazon Network of Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information in 2023, demonstrate the complexity and variability of deforestation dynamics driven by political cycles, enforcement levels, and local socio-economic conditions, and therefore support the need for a more adaptive, context-sensitive approach rather than rigid country benchmarks;

The EUDR states that qualitative criteria set out in Article 29(4) “may be taken into account” by the Commission in its assessment. Thus, the EU legislators have granted the Commission a certain degree of discretion how to incorporate the non-mandatory qualitative criteria in the assessment of countries. As explained in the Commission’s Staff Working Document accompanying the Implementing Regulation, the benchmarking methodology allows to have a specific approach to the countries which are at the lower or higher end of the standard risk category. For the first implementing act, countries comprised within +25% of the low-risk absolute and relative thresholds are subject to a qualitative assessment, including through a consultative process with the Commission.

S. whereas the current risk classification model fails to account for the volatility of global commodity markets, where price fluctuations, trade dynamics, and demand shifts can rapidly alter deforestation pressures;

In line with Article 29(4)(e), countries were checked against relevant sanctions, and were automatically classified as high risk when subject to UN Security Council or EU Council sanctions on imports or exports of the relevant commodities and relevant products, as it is impossible to conduct due diligence along the value chains in these countries, meaning there is a high risk that operators cannot reliably ensure compliance with Article 3(a) EUDR of commodities and products produced in these countries and that accordingly, the risk of circumvention is high.

T. whereas the risk classification should also allow for the creation of a regulated compensation mechanism, applicable exclusively outside of primary or high-biodiversity areas;

On “parts thereof” needed to be assessed:

Concerns about fairness, legitimacy and global engagement

The EUDR requires to classify “countries or parts thereof” so the legal text is open about whether and when to assess the whole country and about the precise meaning of “parts thereof”. In the current benchmarking, the Commission decided not to include an assessment of “parts thereof” for several reasons, including the current lack of FAO FRA regional data. A subnational assessment may be included in future iterations of the benchmarking.

U. whereas the current country benchmarking system may disincentivise cooperation and data sharing by countries producing relevant commodities, particularly if they perceive the risk categorisation of countries as unfair or politically motivated; whereas fostering mutual trust and engagement requires a fair, evidence-based and collaborative approach that encourages transparency and accountability rather than punitive labelling;

On the methodology not being sufficiently transparent:

V. whereas environmental and civil society organisations from countries producing relevant commodities have raised concerns about the lack of inclusive consultation in the development of the country benchmarking system, highlighting the importance of participatory processes that involve indigenous communities, local stakeholders, and regional authorities;

The methodology underlying the classification of countries was already outlined first in October 2024, in the Annex to the Communication on a Strategic Framework on International Cooperation. It was then further described in detail in a dedicated Staff Working Document published on the Commission website alongside the Implementing Regulation. Hence, there is full transparency of the data used as well as comprehensible justifications for limitations of data due to their limited availability.

1. Considers that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093 exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EU) 2023/1115;

With respect to the other provisions of the European Parliament resolution, while the Commission considers that they fall outside the remit of the right of scrutiny; the Commission has carefully considered the positions expressed by the European Parliament and would like to make the following comments:

2. Calls on the Commission to repeal Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093;

Consultation and Engagement

3. Calls on the Commission to revise the country benchmarking system to ensure it is based on up-to-date data, allows for regional differentiation, and includes transparent weighting of risk indicators;

Paragraph 5 and Recitals

4. Urges the Commission to establish clear, time-bound, and transparent procedures for reassessing risk categorisation of countries regularly based on measurable progress and updated scientific data;

The resolution considers that the Commission failed to properly consult on the Implementing Regulation and to engage with producing countries, indigenous communities and local stakeholders.

5. Stresses the importance of engaging with countries producing relevant commodities and stakeholders through inclusive and participatory processes, and of providing support for forest governance reforms and traceability systems;

Since 2024, the Commission has scaled up outreach and cooperation with partner countries and global stakeholders, notably business associations, producers and civil society, in line with the Strategic Framework for International Cooperation Engagement. The Commission held over 300 meetings on EUDR with private stakeholders, Member States authorities and third countries in 2024. Further meetings took place in the first half of 2025 and additional outreach meetings are being planned and will take place all throughout the second half of the year.

6. Calls for complementary measures, such as forest partnerships, technical assistance, and fair trade incentives, to accompany the benchmarking process and promote sustainable transformation in commodity-producing regions;

Amendments to the EUDR and Additional Requests

7. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

Paragraph 6 and Recitals

The resolution considers that the Commission should have used its implementing powers to amend the EUDR in a number of ways, suggesting the inclusion of a fourth risk category (“negligible risk”) and the establishment of a “regulated compensation mechanism”. However, the empowerment in Article 29(2) is clearly defined as allowing the Commission only to classify countries or parties thereof that present a low or high risk. Such requested measures would require amendments of the provisions of the EUDR, are not reflected in the empowerment granted to the Commission by the co-legislators and would clearly exceed the implementing powers granted to the Commission pursuant to Article 29(2) EUDR.

In conclusion, the Commission:

Considers that it conducted the benchmarking assessment and published the Implementing Regulation in line with its implementing powers;

Has based the benchmarking methodology on the internationally recognised sources currently available;

Has conducted the benchmarking assessment in full commitment to fairness, objectivity, and transparency;

Has planned to review and update the list of countries in 2026, following the publication of new FAO FRA data in October 2025;

Is continuing to engage intensively with third countries and stakeholders outside and inside the EU producing relevant commodities to support their preparation ahead of EUDR entry into application;

Remains available for further exchanges with the co-legislators.